ontological argument

how does anselm argue for god’s existence?

• god is something that "nothing greater can be concieved”

• he uses the example of a painting. a painting is greater once it has been painted than it is in just the imagination

• anything that exists is greater than something that exists in the mind

• therefore it would be a contradiction to define god this way and not believe he exists

what quote does anselm use for the ontological argument?

psalms: the fool says in his heart there is no god

→ foolish not to believe in God

name 3 strengths of anselm

1. most people would agree with this definition of god. if he were to exist, he would be the greatest convicveable thing due to his ability to create the world and everything in existence
   → secular definition
   

2. uses a priori knowledge and logic which means we aren’t deceived by human senses
   

3. deductive argument. it uses valid reasoning that god must exist because he is the greatest. it leads to a valid conclusion which is very difficult to argue against if you accept the premises

name 4 limitations of anselm

1. is it possible to define god really? we don’t have any knowledge of him past the bible which hasn’t been proven to be infallible. human definitions are manmade. a unicorn can have a definition but that doesn’t mean its a factual thing
   

2. a priori knowledge has the risk of being invalid. it is better to use empircial evidence so we can verify and falsify information to prove god’s existence rather than reason
   

3. it can feel like being tricked into saying god exists. we can disagree with the conclusion while agreeing with the definition or the painting example.
   → also can disagree with premiesis
   → e..g a flying carpet would be better in imagination cause it would be dangerous otherwise
   

4. gaunilo

how does gaunilo contrast anselm

• argued anselm’s belief is a false assumption

• used example of the greatest ‘lost island’ nobody has ever found

• anselm’s understanding says the island must exist if it’s the greates

• but the island doesn’t exist and gaunilo just imagined it

• also example of gossip:

• we could hear someone gossiping about a man we don’t know. in our mind, we create an imagine of this man, but then find out the man doesn’t exist
  → we can come up with characteristics and definitions about god but that doesn’t mean he exists and we will never know

• accuses anselm of poor reasoning

name 2 strengths of gaunilo

1. anselm is defining things into existence. it is possible to have a defintion of something that doesn’t exist
   → e.g. unicorns, mermaids and all that do not exist but have definitions
   

2. russel: existence is only meaningful if it refers to an instance of something (something we have experience of). we see an instance of cows but not of unicorns
   → religious experience like davey falcus

name 2 limitations of gaunilo

1. anselm’s response: god isn’t a contingent being and has necessery existence, unlike an island. since it’s greater to be a necessary being, and god is the greatest thing to exist, god must be a necessary being
   

2. plantinga: island has no intrinsic maximum, it can always be improved. god however has an intrinsic maximum. he is the greatest concievable being and can’t be greater so must exist

what does descartes believe about the ontological argument?

• god is a “supremely perfect being”

• he contains perfect characteristics like: omnibenevolence, omnipotence and most importantly existence

• a triangle must have 3 sides and angles equal to 180 → without those characteristics it isn’t a triangle
  → god is the same. existence cannot be separated from his essence

• therefore, god must exist as existence is necessary to him

name 2 strengths of descartes

1. anselm
   

2. existence should be used to describe god as it does eem to be an essential part of him, especially if we can’t see him. his existence does seem to add to his description in this case

name 3 limitations of descartes

1. kant
   

2. concept does not bring it into existence. if we can think of a triangle existing, then we can think of it not existing in the same way that we can with god. the argument falls apart quickly
   

3. russell: existence is only meaningful if it refers to an instance of something (something we have experience of). we see an instance of cows but not of unicorns
   → religious experience like davey falcus. we can use reason to explain instances of god. reason can be used to find fitting empirical evidence

name the 2 aspects of kant's criticism of descartes

1. proof is needed

2. existence is not a quality of god

explain kant and proof being needed

• all arguments regarding existence should be synthetic (needs external evidence) not analytic (contains info in statement)

• it is logically necessary for a triangle to have 3 sides but not necessary for the triangle to exist in reality

• the concept of god is correct by definition but where is the proof?

explain kant and existence not being a quality of god

• existence is not a real or determening predicate

• existence doesn’t add anything to the concept so it isn’t determening

• you can describe someone as tall with blonde hair but saying they exist doesn’t add anything to their description

• example of silver coins:

  • 100 silver coins do not have any more value than 100 silver coins

  • concept of the silver coins is the same whether they are real or not

    → when verified synthetically, 100 makes a difference to your life but until then it is pointless

name 2 strengths of kant

1. concept doesn’t being things into existence. if we can think of something existing, we can think of it not existing and then it falls apart
   

2. existence needs synthetic verification. good exists isn’t analytic as it doesn’t hold truth within the statement. we need to actively look for evidence. cosmological argument is stronger
   → looks for external

name 2 limitations of kant

1. part of what it means to be the greatest possible being is existence. if he didn’t exist he wouldn’t be perfect. so existence is a necessary and real predicate
   

2. god is logically necessary. it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being. a necessary being can’t not exist, so he has to exist

what is an analytic statement?

contains info within statement to verify if its true due to meaning

→ e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men

what is a synthetic statement?

needs external evidence to verify
→ e.g. it’s raining outside

what is a predicate?

adds something to description
→ e.g. a red four sided square

red is the predicate as it gives new info, four sided is a false predicate as it doesn’t